Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won’t go into effect until the next school board is sworn in.

Personally, I’m in favor of it. It’s a thankless job that requires countless hours. Who would you expect to run? How could someone hold down a full-time job AND do this? If the salary isn’t raised, you’re only going to have candidates that are wealthy.

It should be a part-time position and they should be meet at night to provide community oversight. They meet constantly to justify their importance but they accomplish very little and, to the extent they do anything, it’s mostly meddling with staff decisions to advance their own personal agendas. That’s not going to change, and they’ll feel even more empowered to be useless busybodies if they make almost 2x as much.

That's just not how a school board operates in a system as big as ours. They have meetings at night but then also day-long work sessions. They have to go to schools, meet with principals, tour buildings and step in on classes. They have to go to PTA meetings and other community events. They have to respond to go many parents and constituents and communicate with all the high level staff and superintendent. That's a full time job.

Running for school board should be accessible to working parents and with a 30k salary, it isn't really to most people unless you own your own company or are rich.

FCPS has a very large staff that does most of these things, and does so more effectively than the School Board. They have a “full-time job” in large part to dissuade others from running against them. Rather than pay them more to meddle even more, they should scale back their activities and hire a strong Superintendent - instead, the main criteria for top leadership now is the extent to which they’ll allow themselves to get bosses around. If anything, there is an inverse correlation between the number of hours Board members meet and the effective operation of FCPS.

Well said.

The SB meetings are very long--but look at how long it takes to get to the real work. Last week the meat of the meeting did not begin for two hours. The business itself lasted only one hour.

The proclamations and resolutions have gone way over the top with the statements and then the comments.

And, most of the contentiousness seems to be because of their refusal to listen to the wishes of the parents. Instead of putting academics as the focus of the Board, it is activism.

Attending the public meetings is not even half of the job of the school board members. They are constantly meeting with school leaders, PTA leaders, responding to constituent and staff emails, reading briefing papers and making policy, etc. I agree the meetings shouldn't take that long with the proclamations, but that is not part of this discussion. This discussion is about how we can never get good candidates for school board and part of the reason for that is because they are paid so terribly!

I have yet to hear anybody argue differently, except for saying they don't like the current school board and they don't deserve a raise. This isn't about the current school board! Only 4 of the 12 are returning and it doesn't go into effect until next year. This is about making sure we can attract talent to the board. And if you don't like the current board, you should be happy with this raise because it means there will be more people who can afford to run for board without going broke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won’t go into effect until the next school board is sworn in.

Personally, I’m in favor of it. It’s a thankless job that requires countless hours. Who would you expect to run? How could someone hold down a full-time job AND do this? If the salary isn’t raised, you’re only going to have candidates that are wealthy.

It should be a part-time position and they should be meet at night to provide community oversight. They meet constantly to justify their importance but they accomplish very little and, to the extent they do anything, it’s mostly meddling with staff decisions to advance their own personal agendas. That’s not going to change, and they’ll feel even more empowered to be useless busybodies if they make almost 2x as much.

That's just not how a school board operates in a system as big as ours. They have meetings at night but then also day-long work sessions. They have to go to schools, meet with principals, tour buildings and step in on classes. They have to go to PTA meetings and other community events. They have to respond to go many parents and constituents and communicate with all the high level staff and superintendent. That's a full time job.

Running for school board should be accessible to working parents and with a 30k salary, it isn't really to most people unless you own your own company or are rich.

FCPS has a very large staff that does most of these things, and does so more effectively than the School Board. They have a “full-time job” in large part to dissuade others from running against them. Rather than pay them more to meddle even more, they should scale back their activities and hire a strong Superintendent - instead, the main criteria for top leadership now is the extent to which they’ll allow themselves to get bosses around. If anything, there is an inverse correlation between the number of hours Board members meet and the effective operation of FCPS.

What you're effectively saying is you don't want oversight of the staff. I know there is a large talented staff, but we need a strong school board to provide oversight of it.

This isn't about this current school board. This is about ensuring that we have a pool of qualified candidates for the board who can hold the staff accountable and respond to constituent needs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won’t go into effect until the next school board is sworn in.

Personally, I’m in favor of it. It’s a thankless job that requires countless hours. Who would you expect to run? How could someone hold down a full-time job AND do this? If the salary isn’t raised, you’re only going to have candidates that are wealthy.

It should be a part-time position and they should be meet at night to provide community oversight. They meet constantly to justify their importance but they accomplish very little and, to the extent they do anything, it’s mostly meddling with staff decisions to advance their own personal agendas. That’s not going to change, and they’ll feel even more empowered to be useless busybodies if they make almost 2x as much.

That's just not how a school board operates in a system as big as ours. They have meetings at night but then also day-long work sessions. They have to go to schools, meet with principals, tour buildings and step in on classes. They have to go to PTA meetings and other community events. They have to respond to go many parents and constituents and communicate with all the high level staff and superintendent. That's a full time job.

Running for school board should be accessible to working parents and with a 30k salary, it isn't really to most people unless you own your own company or are rich.

FCPS has a very large staff that does most of these things, and does so more effectively than the School Board. They have a “full-time job” in large part to dissuade others from running against them. Rather than pay them more to meddle even more, they should scale back their activities and hire a strong Superintendent - instead, the main criteria for top leadership now is the extent to which they’ll allow themselves to get bosses around. If anything, there is an inverse correlation between the number of hours Board members meet and the effective operation of FCPS.

Well said.

The SB meetings are very long--but look at how long it takes to get to the real work. Last week the meat of the meeting did not begin for two hours. The business itself lasted only one hour.

The proclamations and resolutions have gone way over the top with the statements and then the comments.

And, most of the contentiousness seems to be because of their refusal to listen to the wishes of the parents. Instead of putting academics as the focus of the Board, it is activism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won’t go into effect until the next school board is sworn in.

Personally, I’m in favor of it. It’s a thankless job that requires countless hours. Who would you expect to run? How could someone hold down a full-time job AND do this? If the salary isn’t raised, you’re only going to have candidates that are wealthy.

It should be a part-time position and they should be meet at night to provide community oversight. They meet constantly to justify their importance but they accomplish very little and, to the extent they do anything, it’s mostly meddling with staff decisions to advance their own personal agendas. That’s not going to change, and they’ll feel even more empowered to be useless busybodies if they make almost 2x as much.

That's just not how a school board operates in a system as big as ours. They have meetings at night but then also day-long work sessions. They have to go to schools, meet with principals, tour buildings and step in on classes. They have to go to PTA meetings and other community events. They have to respond to go many parents and constituents and communicate with all the high level staff and superintendent. That's a full time job.

Running for school board should be accessible to working parents and with a 30k salary, it isn't really to most people unless you own your own company or are rich.

FCPS has a very large staff that does most of these things, and does so more effectively than the School Board. They have a “full-time job” in large part to dissuade others from running against them. Rather than pay them more to meddle even more, they should scale back their activities and hire a strong Superintendent - instead, the main criteria for top leadership now is the extent to which they’ll allow themselves to get bosses around. If anything, there is an inverse correlation between the number of hours Board members meet and the effective operation of FCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won’t go into effect until the next school board is sworn in.

Personally, I’m in favor of it. It’s a thankless job that requires countless hours. Who would you expect to run? How could someone hold down a full-time job AND do this? If the salary isn’t raised, you’re only going to have candidates that are wealthy.

Well, they will still be making a lot more than me, a classroom teacher with 15 years experience, an Ivy League education, a masters, and a PhD.

No they won't. A teacher with a PhD and 15 years experiences makes 93k. Do you work in FCPS?

DP. Why is this even relevant? School Board members spend next to no time in classrooms. They aren’t doing heavy lifting like teachers!

11:03 here (others posted about the salary after me). We are a two teacher household. It’s relevant because the pp stated that the school board would be making more than a teacher with 15 years and a doctorate degree, which is not accurate.

I agree that teachers do heavy lifting, but let’s be accurate in the points we try to make.

Point taken. I still think the raise that the SB proposes to give themselves is unwarranted and, if anything, will only encourage their worst tendencies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won’t go into effect until the next school board is sworn in.

Personally, I’m in favor of it. It’s a thankless job that requires countless hours. Who would you expect to run? How could someone hold down a full-time job AND do this? If the salary isn’t raised, you’re only going to have candidates that are wealthy.

It should be a part-time position and they should be meet at night to provide community oversight. They meet constantly to justify their importance but they accomplish very little and, to the extent they do anything, it’s mostly meddling with staff decisions to advance their own personal agendas. That’s not going to change, and they’ll feel even more empowered to be useless busybodies if they make almost 2x as much.

That's just not how a school board operates in a system as big as ours. They have meetings at night but then also day-long work sessions. They have to go to schools, meet with principals, tour buildings and step in on classes. They have to go to PTA meetings and other community events. They have to respond to go many parents and constituents and communicate with all the high level staff and superintendent. That's a full time job.

Running for school board should be accessible to working parents and with a 30k salary, it isn't really to most people unless you own your own company or are rich.

FCPS has a very large staff that does most of these things, and does so more effectively than the School Board. They have a “full-time job” in large part to dissuade others from running against them. Rather than pay them more to meddle even more, they should scale back their activities and hire a strong Superintendent - instead, the main criteria for top leadership now is the extent to which they’ll allow themselves to get bosses around. If anything, there is an inverse correlation between the number of hours Board members meet and the effective operation of FCPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won’t go into effect until the next school board is sworn in.

Personally, I’m in favor of it. It’s a thankless job that requires countless hours. Who would you expect to run? How could someone hold down a full-time job AND do this? If the salary isn’t raised, you’re only going to have candidates that are wealthy.

It should be a part-time position and they should be meet at night to provide community oversight. They meet constantly to justify their importance but they accomplish very little and, to the extent they do anything, it’s mostly meddling with staff decisions to advance their own personal agendas. That’s not going to change, and they’ll feel even more empowered to be useless busybodies if they make almost 2x as much.

That's just not how a school board operates in a system as big as ours. They have meetings at night but then also day-long work sessions. They have to go to schools, meet with principals, tour buildings and step in on classes. They have to go to PTA meetings and other community events. They have to respond to go many parents and constituents and communicate with all the high level staff and superintendent. That's a full time job.

Running for school board should be accessible to working parents and with a 30k salary, it isn't really to most people unless you own your own company or are rich.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won’t go into effect until the next school board is sworn in.

Personally, I’m in favor of it. It’s a thankless job that requires countless hours. Who would you expect to run? How could someone hold down a full-time job AND do this? If the salary isn’t raised, you’re only going to have candidates that are wealthy.

It should be a part-time position and they should be meet at night to provide community oversight. They meet constantly to justify their importance but they accomplish very little and, to the extent they do anything, it’s mostly meddling with staff decisions to advance their own personal agendas. That’s not going to change, and they’ll feel even more empowered to be useless busybodies if they make almost 2x as much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won’t go into effect until the next school board is sworn in.

Personally, I’m in favor of it. It’s a thankless job that requires countless hours. Who would you expect to run? How could someone hold down a full-time job AND do this? If the salary isn’t raised, you’re only going to have candidates that are wealthy.

Well, they will still be making a lot more than me, a classroom teacher with 15 years experience, an Ivy League education, a masters, and a PhD.

No they won't. A teacher with a PhD and 15 years experiences makes 93k. Do you work in FCPS?

DP. Why is this even relevant? School Board members spend next to no time in classrooms. They aren’t doing heavy lifting like teachers!

11:03 here (others posted about the salary after me). We are a two teacher household. It’s relevant because the pp stated that the school board would be making more than a teacher with 15 years and a doctorate degree, which is not accurate.

I agree that teachers do heavy lifting, but let’s be accurate in the points we try to make.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won’t go into effect until the next school board is sworn in.

Personally, I’m in favor of it. It’s a thankless job that requires countless hours. Who would you expect to run? How could someone hold down a full-time job AND do this? If the salary isn’t raised, you’re only going to have candidates that are wealthy.

Well, they will still be making a lot more than me, a classroom teacher with 15 years experience, an Ivy League education, a masters, and a PhD.

No they won't. A teacher with a PhD and 15 years experiences makes 93k. Do you work in FCPS?

DP. Why is this even relevant? School Board members spend next to no time in classrooms. They aren’t doing heavy lifting like teachers!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won’t go into effect until the next school board is sworn in.

Personally, I’m in favor of it. It’s a thankless job that requires countless hours. Who would you expect to run? How could someone hold down a full-time job AND do this? If the salary isn’t raised, you’re only going to have candidates that are wealthy.

Well, they will still be making a lot more than me, a classroom teacher with 15 years experience, an Ivy League education, a masters, and a PhD.

No they won't. A teacher with a PhD and 15 years experiences makes 93k. Do you work in FCPS?